Search

In this paper, I address how political, economic, and demographic change have influenced the path of income inequality in the United States from 1947-2000. I utilize and build on theoretical insights from the macro politics model in American politics and theories of welfare state development from comparative politics in order to explain the path of income inequality in America. I show that income inequality is a fundamental part of the macro political system of the United States. It is both influenced by political dynamics and is a causal force in its own right, helping to shape the dynamics of public policy in America. Most fundamentally, political dynamics (primarily party control of government and the ideological tone of policymaking) influence distributional outcomes through two mechanisms---redistribution and market conditioning. I describe these two mechanisms and test the degree to which politics shapes inequality through these mechanisms, reaching the somewhat surprising conclusion that explicit redistribution is less important than market conditioning. The vast majority of distributional impact that can be allocated to political dynamics comes through market conditioning rather than the taxes and transfers of the traditional welfare state. In the end, when Democrats control government and liberal policies are enacted, income inequality declines substantially, and the effect of these macro political dynamics is similar in importance to economic and demographic change. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of the controversy surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status in the presidential primary sequence, it is important to consider whether or not these two states deserve their highly coveted calendar positions. This issue is even more pressing in light of political science findings about how the results of the first primaries affect the final outcome of the nomination process. In this paper, we evaluate several criteria to see if Iowa and New Hampshire are as "special" as their proponents suggest. After briefly comparing Iowa and New Hampshire's demographic characteristics vis-à-vis those of the rest of the country, we use NES data to compare the political knowledge of Iowans and New Hampshirites to that of the mass electorate. Finally, we examine the election results in Iowa and New Hampshire to gain additional leverage on how their residents' votes are turned into representation. Our results are a mixed bag, though, in particular, we find that Iowans and New Hampshirites are not as knowledgeable nor as interested as their proponents suggest. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many years, it was thought that transnational ties blocked immigrants frombecoming Americans and participating in American politics. Following news about thehomeland and investing in homeland politics provided both a psychological barrier and aresource deficit to getting involved in American political processes. However political engagement may not be a zero-sum game for immigrants in whichthey choose whether to engage the politics of their homeland, or the politics of their newhome. Rather, continued transnational engagement through actively following news andpolitical events in the homeland might stimulate civic engagement in America.In this paper we examine data from the 2007 Muslim American Public Opinion Survey (MAPOS)to determine whether or not transnational ties encourages or discourages participationin American politics. We find that Muslim Americans who follow news and politics in theMiddle East very closely, are actually more likely to participate in U.S. politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the implications for liberal political theory of the persistence of racial inequality in the United States? And what do liberal principles and values require with regard to racial justice? This paper attempts to sketch answers to these two large questions. The general argument that it presents is that liberal theory permits more than is often supposed, and specifically that it permits a number of race-conscious policies and institutions, in the pursuit of racial equality. Yet in making this argument liberal theory itself is analyzed, interpreted, and (some might say) revised. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We included alternative questions assessing trust in government on the 2006 NES Pilot. These questions were designed with two main purposes. The first is to improve upon existing wording of the ANES trust question, mainly by exploring alternative response options. The second is to evaluate the extent to which responses vary according to the object of citizens' trust. These trust objects include the decision-making process, the resulting policy outcomes, and the level of government (national versus state). This paper evaluates the preformce of these new trust items. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban scholars have long lamented the marginalization of the subfield of urban politics within the field of political science. This paper presents historical institutionalism as one possible vehicle for reconnecting to the discipline. Several of the most important works in urban politics, including Robert Dahl's Who Governs? and Clarence Stone's Regime Politics, are deeply historical. These have become classic texts, in part, because they describe and analyze long-term political processes in order to develop explanations of urban governance. Yet few contemporary urban scholars appear to be following their example. Historical institutionalism occupies a prominent place in the subfield of American government, yet few studies in this tradition are genuinely urban. Opportunities exist for urban scholars to contribute to this literature and, by doing so, to begin to rebuild bridges between the subfield of American government and urban politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, party ideologies received little attention from political scientists. Louis Hartz's (1955) influential argument that America is unique among liberal democracies in that it has no true ideological conflict is likely part of the reason. He holds that there is a liberal consensus in America, grounded in private property, suspicion of government, social freedom, and equality. Perhaps as a result, parties have often been thought of as nonideological organizations. Realignment theorists, however, have long contended that fundamental ideological conflicts are behind "critical elections." In addition, a wide variety of scholars have recently been taking ideology more seriously (Aldrich 1995; Budge 1994; Bruce et al. 1991).By far the most comprehensive account of party ideologies comes from John Gerring (1998). Gerring argues that "Jeffersonian" Democrats from 1828 to 1892 embraced white supremacy, antistatism, and civic republicanism before transitioning into a "Populist" epoch of egalitarianism, majoritarianism, and Christian humanism. Democrats experienced a third transition to "Universalism" in the late 1940s with the adoption of civil rights, social welfare, economic redistribution, and inclusion.What is missing from all this work, however, is a connection between party ideology and foreign affairs—particularly wars. As prominent political scientists have noted, scholars of American politics have generally overlooked foreign affairs (Mayhew 2005; Katznelson 2002).Building on Gerring's typology, this paper explores ideological change in the Democratic party at two critical points: following World War II and during the Vietnam War. While Gerring is certainly correct that no single factor can account for all instances of ideological change, I argue that these wars are intimately tied to enduring shifts in the Democrats' ideology. In addition, this project breaks with Gerring to suggest the Democratic Party entered a fourth ideological epoch during the Vietnam era.Wars can recast the political landscape in this manner because they are such profound and unpredictable social, cultural, and political events that tend to introduce new, long-lasting issues and policy concerns. That is, wars create crises—many of which are unanticipated—that require immediate attention and supplant prior issues on the policy agenda. These kinds of effects are akin to seismic shifts in the nation's political landscape and, in response, political parties are forced to reassess their governing philosophies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this essay is to take stock of recent contributions in comparative politics to the study of the State to assess their utility for accounts of the state in American political development. There are two important intellectual backdrops to this undertaking. First, it is now well established that the apparent "statelessness" of the United States is an illusion. Second, not only has the view of the American state changed but the comparative template of the state against which American state-building has been measured has shifted as well. We argue in this essay that these two puzzles are closely linked and that these new directions in the very comparative literature that once found the United States to be "stateless," following J. P. Nettl's classic paper on the state as a multidimensional conceptual variable, ironically provide the basis upon which to build an alternative perspective on the American state, enriched by comparative insights. In this emerging view, American state building, strength, and institutional capacity form through links with society, not necessarily through autonomy from society. In this essay we explore these paradoxes in some greater detail, beginning with the general comparative literature on the state before turning our attention to the parallel ironies of the state in American political development. We then survey a small number of recent works drawn from comparative, international, and American politics, all of which highlight in a variety of ways an alternative, more multidimensional view of the state. This reconceptualization of the state, we then suggest, is particularly applicable to the United States and helps to resolve the paradoxes of the American state. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) is an increasingly important actor in homeland security in Europe, serving as both a platform for cooperation and as an authoritative actor in its own right. As the role of the EU grows, both scholars and practitioners need to know how the basic features of its policy system enhance or limit the capacity to manage European crises and disasters. This paper takes a "bureaucratic politics" perspective on the question, exploring the degree to which competition between individual units operating within the EU's bureaucracy may influence outcomes during critical situations. We use five dimensions of a policy system that shape bureaucratic politics and measure the EU on each dimension, finding that fundamental tensions exist in the EU that are likely to exacerbate bureaucratic politics. However, we note that the EU is working towards dedicated crisis decision procedures that may change how bureaucratic politics influences outcomes. We also caution against assuming that competition between interest-oriented individuals and organizational units is inherently dysfunctional. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade, scholars have increasingly shifted some of the attention given to ethnic politics from discussions of conflict and peacemaking to discussions of how to make ethnically divided societies more democratic. In most cases, democratic theorists, in making their normative recommendations, have not taken into account everything we know about how ethnic identity and ethnic politics work in the real world. This failure to incorporate our empirical knowledge about ethnic politics takes two forms: first, theory has often been rooted too firmly in the contexts of specific countries, usually the countries the scholars are most familiar with; second, theory has seldom given more than lip service to the fact that identities change over time, but instead has treated those identities, and the boundaries between them, as essentially fixed. While much ink has been spilled on the conflict between empowering minority ethnic groups and protecting the individual freedoms of the members of those groups, the specific recommendations for accomplishing either of these goals tend to grow out of specific times and places. This cultural context may be explicit, as when Will Kymlicka uses Canadian examples to illustrate the different sorts of ethnic groups that can exist and the different rights that should be accorded to each, or the context may be implicit, as when American political theorists model the participation of minority groups in democratic politics generally on the ways in which minorities have historically participated in the American political system. In reality, how members of ethnic groups participate in politics­democratic or otherwise­will be determined by a whole range of factors, such as the history and culture of a country, the size of a minority relative to the majority, the strengths of the identities in question, and the possibility of alternate identities that lay claim on individuals' loyalties. For example, a minority group that votes as a bloc is something of a curiosity when it makes up 1% of the population of a state, but an existential threat to democracy when it makes up 40%. One of these factors which is most often overlooked is the degree to which ethnic identity is dynamic and even malleable: identities can sharpen or fade over time, and under some circumstances groups can combine or split up. Knowing this, we should consider not only the impact that our solutions will have in the present, but also the ways in which they will affect the evolution of identities in the future. For example, if we see some prospect that two competing groups can develop a common identity that renders their erstwhile conflict moot, we would want to make sure not to suggest measures that would prevent that evolution from occurring, or even push the development of identities in the opposite direction. Of course, one short paper cannot by itself do all of the work of bringing empirical reality into the democratic theory of ethnic politics. However, I hope that I can provide a framework that will make that task possible. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Going public has long been a tool of the president, but over the last several decades, members of Congress have increasingly employed it for their own purposes. Using content analysis of national news sources to study how congressional members responded to three specific presidential calls to reform Social Security (1977, 1981, and 2005) and additional content analysis of the New York Times for select periods from 1977-2001, this paper attempts to understand more about how members of Congress go public to respond to the president and how increasing polarization in Congress has affected this. We find evidence that going public in Congress has increased at least on issues that are high priorities, that which congressional members go public has changed over time and with the political environment, and that the overall tone of members' public responses to the president has become more partisan. Our findings suggest implications for the balance of power between Congress and the president and their ability to work together to make policy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the ratification of the United States Constitution until the Civil War, the Anglo-American state was a predatory state in its dealings with non-whites, but a contract state in respect to the internal governance of the dominant group, Anglo-American males.During the 1840s and 1850s, the Anglo-American republic became more of a market economy, grew more prosperous, offered greater economic opportunities to its citizens, developed a more pluralistic civil society, further democratized its political institutions,and gained greater military strength. However, contrary to what one would expect after reading the scholarly literature on economic and political development, the Anglo-American state not only increased its exploitation of slaves and American Indians, but it also invaded a neighboring nation and annexed half its territory, and ultimately collapsed into disunion and civil war. This essay is an early report of our attempt to apply the insights of multiple orders theory to the task of explaining why the Anglo-American republic disintegrated into sectional warfare when it was at the height of its success. In this paper, we present our understanding of four complementary approaches to the study of American political development—path dependence, multiple orders/institutional dissonance, politicalentrepreneurship/constructivism, and institutional economics—and apply their theoretical insights to the task of explaining southern secession in 1860. We find that an intra-racial civil war resulted from the competition between Anglo-American political entrepreneursacting in the institutional context of multiple political orders divided into two geographical sections with opposing systems of property rights. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For most Americans, having a formal say about politics on the local level likely means appearing before an elected body of decision-makers, such as a school board or town council, and expressing an opinion intended to persuade the decision-makers one way or another. Because political scientists have generally paid little attention to what is actually said at these meetings, we know almost nothing about what sort of rhetoric ordinary citizens choose to employ and whether such formal occasions at which citizens can have their say meet any of the goals deliberative theorists have for public, democratic talk. To this point, no systematic data about the nature of public discourse at such meetings has been collected. This paper aims to remedy this oversight by presenting initial results from a content analysis of public discourse at town council meetings about the merits of Wal-Mart development held in 8 communities around the country, ranging from tiny Knightdale, North Carolina to the large city of San Diego, California. We examine differences in the nature of the discourse across various political and social contexts and the extent to which local discourse meets goals deliberative theorists have articulated for effective public talk. Understanding the nature and dynamics of ordinary citizens' formal public talk in such settings is, we assert, critical to diagnosing the health of democracy generally in the contemporary United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerson and Whitman are two of the most important thinkers in American history. They not only represent the first person to put the United States on the international intellectual map and the first artist to achieve a uniquely American style, respectively. Equally important is the fact that they wrote during one of the most significant political moments in American history. The most productive years of the careers of each encompass the years leading up to, during, and immediately after the Civil War. Hence understanding their writings in that context should help us to gain greater leverage on our own intellectual history and inheritance. Furthermore, both writers are woefully understudied by political theorists, and they are both frequently misunderstood. In this paper, I will suggest several corrections to our understanding of the writings of Whitman and Emerson and the connections between them. I will focus on the tensions in each between the rights of individuals and democracy, as well as on the continuities and discontinuities in each with the political discourses of the times in which they wrote. Towards this end, I use Thomas Carlyle as a foil for moving between them and for highlighting their similarities and differences. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do rising political tensions impact the level of economic exchange between states? The relationship between economic interdependence and war has been a central debate in international relations, but less is known about whether smaller shifts in relations between states produce corresponding shifts in economic affairs. Our paper examines whether periods of heightened political tensions with negative opinion polls and public discord between top leaders produce any measurable effect on economic transactions. We focus on US-French relations and Sino-Japanese relations as two cases that allow us to compare varying levels of political tension given high economic interdependence and different alliance relations. Heightened tensions over Iraq led many Americans to call for boycotting French products. Sino-Japanese relations worsened over the visits by Prime Minister Koizumi to a controversial shrine and led to widespread boycott efforts and suspension of top-level leader meetings. Our analysis of aggregate trends in trade and investment flows shows that sour political relations did not spill over to harm economic affairs. Even looking at the sales of top firms or products with high salience, we find no evidence that periods of political tensions had lower levels of exchange than other periods. We conclude that sunk costs in existing trade and investment relations and competitive pressures in global markets mean that economic transactions show little response to political trends. Nevertheless, we discuss conditions under which prolonged tensions may lead in the long term to a decline in brand image and reduced cooperation for governance rules, which would create linkage between political and economic relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers how the American regime was altered by the scientific and technological innovations of the 19th century. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding power usually comes from looking at it in the context of dynamic changes both in the nature of power and the nature of adversary and the context of interactions. Traditionally, power has been defined and measured by quantitative indicators of hard power, given conventional battlefield strategy and conventional weapons state adversaries are likely to use. Today, hard power still remains an important component of state power. Yet, in light of the changing nature of the international environment, and given that states find themselves increasingly reliant on their soft power internationally and constrained by limits of their extractive capacity domestically, hard power has become a less relevant tool for addressing asymmetric threats. The present paper suggests the need not only to recognize strengths offered by the increased complexity of the American power, but also to recognize its vulnerabilities. While the US is well-equipped to combat threats that come from states, different elements of its power have become increasingly vulnerable to attacks by terrorist organizations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on agenda setting often requires long time frames to illustrate and explain the rise and fall of issues on agendas and the punctuated nature of policy change. But less common are studies which treat time itself as a variable that helps to explain the particular trajectory of a policy issue or set of issues. To appreciate the importance of timing, we must examine agenda setting and policy change processes around similar issues in two settings, where the timing and sequence of key events and strategies differ. This paper examines differences in agenda-setting and policy change around the issue of lawn care pesticides in the United States and Canada. I argue that the timing and sequencing of events, actor mobilization, and venue shifts significantly shaped the divergent paths of the conflicts. The relative mobilization of competing advocacy groups at the start of the campaigns, and successful venue shifts at key moments in the conflicts led to different policy outcomes in the two cases. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large literature in political science and communications demonstrates that candidates and the news media can influence the importance voters ascribe to political issues. Little work, however, has sought to compare the agenda-setting influence of each group of actors -- candidates and journalists. Nor do scholars have a good understanding of how the ability of candidates to set the public's agenda varies in campaigns with different levels of candidate-media issue convergence, and whether certain individual-level characteristics, such as partisanship and trust in the media, make some people more susceptible to candidate or media influence. In this paper, I explore these matters with an experiment conducted during the early stages of the 2006 Texas gubernatorial election. I find the media to be more effective than candidates in affecting the salience individuals ascribe to political issues. Not surprisingly, the strongest effects emerge when news reports and campaign communications converge on the same agenda, suggesting the benefit to candidates when the media reflect their issue priorities. In addition, those with higher levels of trust in the media are slightly more susceptible to news effects, and Democrats appear somewhat more receptive to their candidate's preferred issue agenda. The findings point to the continued role of news coverage in shaping public opinion and the value in understanding the relationship between candidates and the media. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the same three underlying exogenous variables that Tocqueville identified in Democracy in America to explain the process of democratization that was occurring in the U.S. that he observed, colleagues associated with the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University have developed over more than two decades a framework for analyzing political systems, Underlying all structured interactions are basic bio-physical condition, the attributes of a community, and the rules that affect the actions and outcomes that are available to individuals. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework will be briefly explicated in this paper and many of its applications to the study of self-governance in the U.S. and in developing countries will be described. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are political consultants members of the party organizations, or are they freelancers outside of the party's control? This paper argues that under generally accepted definitions of party and of organizational structure the consultant corps is within the party organization and is the party infrastructure for campaigns. This theory is tested using network analysis methods on consultant hiring patterns in the 1996 and 2004 House elections to demonstrate consistency across elections and consolidation within the consulting industry. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do states lose to weaker foes in so-called "small" wars? The United States, for example, enjoys a reputation for unmatched tactical proficiency on the battlefield yet has witnessed a post-1945 decline in its ability to secure its political aims in war. Using a new dataset of small wars and insurgencies (1800-2003), we argue the paradox of tactical success but strategic failure has afflicted all states since 1900. While crude indicators of military and economic power are an excellent predictor of war outcomes in the nineteenth century, such variables are no longer tied to political victory after 1900. Indeed, we argue that as states embrace the "modern" way of warfare - typified by mechanized warfare that uses rapid decisive operations (RDO) to strike an adversary's center of gravity - they become less capable of winning small wars and insurgencies. Two variables serve to lock states onto this suboptimal path: (1) the process of industrialization and the rise of market-based economies and (2) a cultural understanding of modern warfare as appropriate, indeed, required, for civilized states. The paper uses a nested research design that pairs large-N statistical test (including fractal pooling) with a within-case comparison of American operations in Iraq (2003-06). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the central concepts in political science is representation. It has been studied under theoretical as well as empirical lines of inquiry, both developing their own notions of the subject. Largely missing, however, is the actors' own perspective on this subject: how do politicians and citizens conceptualize political representation? In this paper, I will outline in what ways complex ideas like political representation can be studied empirically by discussing, first, general features of political concepts understood as cultural concepts. Second, I will ask how they match the methodology and methods of interpretive political science. Third, by using parts of my own study on actors concepts of political representation in Germany and the United States, the potentials of this approach will be considered. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both James Baldwin and Martin Luther King, Jr. are African American heirs to the Emersonian tradition. This paper explores the ways they appropriate, reshape, and redeploy that tradition in the service of America's struggle for racial justice. It discusses how Baldwin and King politicize Emersonian democratic individuality by modeling forms of political action befitting it: Baldwin and King promote Socratic self-examination among mass publics in the spirit of Emerson -- Baldwin through prophetic witness, King through political theater -- thereby helping make Emersonianism adequate to the challenge of racial justice in the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the U.S., proponents of federal support for basic science research and development (R&D) justify the expenditures on grounds that it promotes economic growth and would not otherwise be funded by private industry. Proposals for federally-funded research are subject to peer-review by grant review panels of experts, also known as federal advisory committees (FACs). Ideally, these FACs would be the least likely arenas for pressure politics, but critics concerned about funding inequities associated with peer-review decisions have increased the demand for academic earmarks. Furthermore, in recent years, the National Institutes of Health and other agencies have begun to emphasize the value of translational research, which triggers concerns that individual-investigator grants will suffer while private sector interests such as pharmaceutical companies will benefit. The controversy raises questions about the true nature of pressure group politics regarding peer review of federal grant proposals. Any monopoly of access to the policy process by certain groups can lead to systematic under representation of policy views. In this paper, we examine the interest group participation in grant review FACs in the health, biotechnology and information technology policy domains. Although academics (e.g. researchers, professors, teachers, educators) make up a majority of members of these grant review FACs (Chin & Lindquist 2003), concerns remain that the peer-review process is biased. We collect FAC membership data from 2000-2004 to identify the FAC members who decide how to allocate the scarce research dollars. This research is preliminary and yields questions for further study. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how interest groups strategically frame political issues and how this activity translates in congressional debates. At the heart of this research lie questions about the ability of political elites to affect the role and structure of issue debates. These are longstanding theoretical questions in the political science literature (Riker 1980, 1993; Jones 1994), but empirically under-examined by interest groups scholars. While scholarship often looks for interest group influence in congressional roll call votes or committee behavior, a more pervasive form of influence may be found in how interest groups affect the framing of the policy debate. To explore this relationship, I examine interest group and congressional framing of the partial birth abortion issue over a four year period between 1995 and 1998. The analysis is conducted in two stages. First, I use content analysis of interest group inputs and outputs to examine similarities and differences in interest group and congressional framing. Second, I explore the factors that explain a Member's propensity to promote an interest group's frames using a Heckman selection model. The results of the content analysis suggest a high level of unity between interest group and congressional framing efforts on the partial birth abortion issue. The statistical evidence suggests a link between interest group activity and congressional framing activity. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the middle of the 20th century, the American South has undergone a dramatic political transformation. What was in the 1960s a one-party region owned by Democrats became, by the end of the 20th century a competitive two-party region largely controlled by Republicans. This metamorphosis has been the subject of hundreds (if not thousands) of books and articles. However, the most recent (21st century) growth in Southern Republicanism remains largely unexplored. During the first five-years of the 21st century, the partisan composition of the Southern U.S. House and Senate delegations shifted even more favorably towards Republicans.In this paper we test one potential source of this most recent Republican growth that has yet to be fully explored: personalized politics. Simply put, the growing support for Republican candidates in the South might also be a function of broader public support for President Bush, the Chief Republican. We also examine the extent to which this effect-if it exists-is limited to the South. It may be that "personality politics" plays in Peoria much the way it plays in Atlanta. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers the first systematic analysis of the linkage between cultural worldviews, partisanship, and the making of U.S. foreign policy. Although partisan disagreement over foreign policy reflects the interplay of complex causes, ideological and cultural divergence has been at a minimum salient and at a maximum determinative of foreign policy differences in the post-Cold War era. Since the Cold War ended, America's political parties have demonstrated foreign policy preferences that differ in consistent and coherent ways that correspond to the distinctive cultural worldviews that underlie and differentiate them from each other. Embedded in this observation are three supporting claims that this study synthesizes and supports through a systematic overview of foreign policy "key votes" taken from the Congressional Quarterly Almanac between 1989 and 2004. First, partisanship exerts a discernible influence in foreign-policymaking. That is, the parties will choose different policy options under the same circumstances in at least some cases and do so in consistent ways. Second, the parties can be differentiated from each other by reference to their underlying cultural worldviews in a manner consistent with expectations identified in recent studies of partisan polarization. In other words, the parties look at the world from distinct cultural perspectives that yield different value judgments and policy preferences, including in the foreign policy realm. Third, cultural worldviews matter to the conceptualization of U.S. foreign policy and the definition of the national interest. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "redistricting cycle" resulting from the now-regularity of decennial redistricting has many unexplored implications for the nature of party competition. In this paper, I explore whether state parties change the way they allocate campaign contributions to state legislative candidates in elections immediately prior to redistricting. Using data from 1998 and 2000 in twenty-seven states, I find evidence of two trends. First, there is a pervasive pattern of increased efficiency (directing money to competitive candidates) in the elections immediately prior to redistricting. Second, there is some evidence that majority parties and minority parties will retool their strategies to give themselves the best chance of controlling of the redistricting process. These findings uncover an important longitudinal dimension that has previously been neglected in studies of party finance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACTScholars generally agree that American political parties today more closely resemble the ideal of the responsible party advocates than did the parties of their time. But there is no general agreement that today's parties are superior to those of the mid-twentieth century in the sense of addressing and solving the pressing problems of our time. This paper argues that the parties today differ in composition and behavior from those of the mass parties of earlier periods in American history. Thus, implicit and explicit assumptions about how parties behave are no longer accurate. In consequence, rather than solve today's problems better than the decentralized, disunited parties of a half century ago, today's centralized, cohesive parties are no better at solving problems and may even make them worse. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What political factors influence the allocation of economic patronage in democracies? Answering this question is vital to improving our knowledge of how states and markets interact. In this paper, I argue that changing levels of party centralization can drive important changes in the allocation of state largess. When governing parties are centralized, national party leaders will control sources of patronage, targeting benefits to particularly influential regions and industries. By contrast, when governing parties are decentralized, influential sub-national party leaders will advocate for their constituents, allocating patronage evenly through a national logroll. I find evidence for these relationships by comparing India's distribution process for industrial licenses and government finance under a decentralized Congress Party (1954-61) to its distribution process under a centralized Congress Party (1969-75). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although comparisons are made between the effects of telephoning and door-to-door canvassing in non-partisan Get Out the Vote campaigns (GOTV), with efficacy being denoted to the latter, there are few studies that compare them in the same sample design. There is also a need to consider carefully the theory behind why canvassing and door-to-door contacts should differ. Is it the nature of the intervention or the impact of those running them that is important? In addition, the UK has not so far carried out a GOTV randomized control trial, except for Bochel and Denver's partial study in the early 1970s. Although the UK shares the same electoral system and experienced declines in turnout as the US, there are differences in the practice of voter mobilization that make an extension of the generalization of GOTV methods an interesting research question in comparative politics. This paper reports on a randomized control trial of 6,900 voters in households with accessible landline telephones, which were randomized into three groups of telephone, canvassing and control. The results show a treatment effect of both telephoning and canvassing of 7.3 and 6.7 percentage points respectively. The similarity of impact causes some reflection on the nature of the interventions and their impact. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though K-12 education policy has become an increasingly salient topic in the United States, few individuals understand the diverse arrangements states have devised to govern America's schools. Describing that variability and then using it to explain student academic success and state policy production is this paper's empirical goal. That focus provides a new test of institutional theories of executive power in policy networks, which predict that more powerful executives in less fragmented networks are likely to produce desirable outputs and outcomes. The results strongly suggest that states perform better when governors are empowered to appoint leaders of state education agencies, but that performance wanes if governors can appoint agency leaders and members of state education boards. The results are more mixed regarding education finances, where fragmentation has inconsistent impacts on student academic success, but does appear to attenuate effective policy production. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political scientists know that education, gender, income, age and race matter for public opinion and behavior. But these are more than characteristics of individuals; they are features of groups too. This paper argues that the growing interest in citizen deliberation is an opportunity to revive the study of groups. I analyze data on over 400 groups from a study of jury-eligible Arizona citizens reaching decisions about punitive damages against large corporations. I first establish that these decisions resemble the ones people make about the politics of redistribution, which allows the findings to generalize to the study of public opinion. I then analyze decisions at both the individual and group level and find that the group's demographic composition can be at least as potent as the individual's demographics. The experience of deliberating among many women or people of color can matter far beyond the experience of being a woman or person of color. The implications of this group influence extend to our understanding of deliberation, social cleavages, and the contextual dynamics of public opinion. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What role do power relations have in shaping state policy outcomes? Are power relations the dominant factor in explaining state policy outcomes? To answer these important questions this paper examines the role of the governor of Maryland, one of the most powerful governors in the nation, in the state's welfare reform efforts during the 1990s. This is an especially interesting case because throughout the 1990s two separate Democratic governors supported welfare reforms with conservative components such as the family cap, which was surprising for a state such as Maryland that has a liberal reputation. Was this an example of a powerful institution being overwhelmed by other sources of power within the policy-making process? Using document analysis, participant observation, and interviews with over 60 state policy-makers - including governors, state bureaucrats, legislators and legislative staff - the author finds that the answer to this question is a complex mix of yes and no. From document analysis alone, it is clear that these powerful governors, especially Gov. Schaefer who served from 1987 through 1994, were not overwhelmed. For example, Gov. Schaefer used his veto power to force the state legislature to adopt the family cap component in the state's initial welfare reform pilot program. However, the rest of the research reveals that while the governor of Maryland was powerful enough to assert some control over the policy outcome, his ability to act was also constrained by a variety of powers outside his control and by some phenomenon not related to power relationships. The sources of these constraints include the power of the national government in our federal system, the power of economic realities within the state, the power of changing political dynamics both within and outside the state, the power relationship between the executive and legislative branches, and the power of bureaucratic experts armed with information. These constraints were also influenced by sources not related to power relationships such as the role of ideas, the role of what previous studies have labeled policy learning (for example, Hall 1993), and the role of individual personalities. These findings are important reminders that while understanding power relationships are crucial to understanding all political actions, they are not the only factors that should be considered. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on the work of Franklin and Hirzcy de Mino (1998) and Hill (2006) this paper uses the American National Election Study (NES) Cumulative File to examine the impact of divided government on the probability that an individual would report casting a ballot in midterm and presidential elections between 1964 and 2004. The results of the project suggest that divided government works to reduce the probability of voting by decreasing levels of external efficacy, strength of partisan identification, and knowledge about politics. Interestingly, divided government appears to increase the probability of voting by increasing interest in campaigns. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The jury is a time-honored example of lay participation in an expert domain. Current practitioner and scholarly interest in planning cells, citizen juries, and the like draw on the traditional jury as model and symbol. Though symbolically still powerful, the jury's role in insuring power-sharing in the legal domain is weaker in practice than most realize. Contemporary nationwide efforts at strengthening the jury stem not from grass roots activism but from reform-minded court professionals increasingly dissatisfied with the current balance of power between professionals and lay people of the jury. This paper examines these reform efforts with an eye towards better understanding the political functions of the jury in American democracy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their analysis of the legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, Gibson, Caldeira, and Spence expound the theory of positivity bias. This theory asserts that pre-existing institutional loyalty shapes perceptions of and judgments about court decisions and events. In this paper, we use the theory of positivity bias to investigate the preferences of Americans regarding the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. More specifically, we derive from that theory the hypothesis that Alito confirmation preferences are shaped by pre-existing commitments to the Supreme Court. We demonstrate that those who have a high level of loyalty toward the Supreme Court rely much more heavily on criteria of judiciousness in forming their opinions on whether to confirm Alito. We conclude that institutional loyalty is an important frame through which Americans view the activity of their Supreme Court, and overcoming the presumptions built into that frame is essential if an opposition is to succeed in opposing a presidential nomination. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

America has a significant interest in a stable Iraq that adheres to the principles of democracy. However, regime transitions are precarious and recent history shows that violence during and after a regime transition is common. In the contemporary literature on regime transitions the emphasis is increasingly on "thick" as opposed to "thin" conceptions of democracy. Whereas democratic procedures and institutional safeguards are sufficient to meet the "thin" conception of democracy, authors advocating a "thick" conception of democracy argue that procedures and institutions are viable only when the elite and society at large substantively accept democratic values. However, the latter are also often skeptical about the possibility of bringing about a change in political culture, arguing that the norms and values of a society can only be manipulated at the margin (cf. Fukuyama 2004). My argument is that the history of political thought actually offers some concrete insights about how to facilitate change in the values of a community. In this paper, I look at Plato's Laws and argue that Plato's theory of legislative preambles provides a political principle that promotes political unity in light of new values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a conference paper titled "The War on Terror, Intelligence and US Unilateralism: Why 9/11 Made No Difference" prepared for presentation at the "2005 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It argues on paying closer attention to the logic of linkage politics especially the issue of credible commitments. It discusses international intelligence cooperation after September 11 specifically to the responses of the European Union and Russia.

The article presents the conference paper "American Vincibility in the Aftermath of the War in Iraq: Future Challenges in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Arenas" presented at the "46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It examines the impact of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq invasion on the political and economic terms of the U.S. It emphasizes that the present U.S. policies are insufficiently advancing the interests of the country in the era of globalization and national vulnerability.

The article presents the conference paper "Editorializing Missile Defense: An Analysis of Editorial Opinion Regarding National Missile Defense" that was presented to the International Studies Association Annual Conference in Honolulu, Hawaii. A look at the U.S. missile defense program following the cold war is presented. An analysis of editorial opinion regarding missile defense over the last ten years was conducted, covering political disputes over the missile defense plank of the Republican's "Contract with America."

The article presents a conference paper titled "Who Cares about the Weather? Climate Change and U.S. National Security" prepared for the annual conference of the International Studies Association in Honolulu, Hawaii. It seeks to link the issue of climate change with energy security, nuclear proliferation, disasters and reputational concerns. It also aims to introduce a line of new climate change political science research that speaks to the ambitions of the original proponents of environmental security.

This paper employs Skocpol's theory of revolutions to explain the genesis of the Civil Rights movement and its impact on American politics. It emphasizes the usefulness of a state-centered approach to the study of racial politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes that terror alerts keep the public's attention on foreign affairs and off of domestic issues, which is favorable to the president?s approval ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the effects of term limits on incumbent U.S. state legislator career decisions. First, I hypothesize that term limits influence career decisions in advance of the final term, as legislators strategically prepare for subsequent careers. Specifically, I hypothesize that the probabilities of retirement and higher office increase as legislators exhaust eligibility. Second, I posit that legislators serving under term limits are more responsive to open state Senate and U.S. House seats and that the probabilities of running for these open seats increase as legislators consume the term limit. Third, I hypothesize that legislators in term-limited legislatures are more likely to run for local office or accept non-elective political employment. I test these hypotheses employing two datasets of career decisions, electoral, and legislator demographic data in a general model of career choice. The findings support the hypotheses and indicate the intensity of political careerism and the strategic nature of responses to term limits. The results also suggest that while term limits stimulate legislative turnover, they also lead to the recirculation of careerists up and down the political career ladder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper applies the theory of the Unitary Executive to the current Bush administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a comparative framework, this paper explores the parallel rights revolutions in Canada and the United States, particularly as they relate to the implementation of federal fair employment policies during the 1940s and 1950s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I explain when politicization occurs in the U.S. federal government, focusing on the tradeoff between political control and bureaucratic competence. I analyze data on the percentage of political appointments among managers in 250 federal agencies over the 1988-2004 period. I show that politicization is neither increasing steadily over time nor caused by the actions of Republican presidents. Politicization increases when agency preferences diverge from those of the president and when agency outputs are relatively insensitive to changes in politicization such as when agency tasks are uncomplicated or when outside wages available to career managers are low. Politicization also increases during periods when Congress and the president share similar policy preferences. I conclude that politicization occurs in regular and predictable patterns and that understanding these patterns are essential for an understanding of American politics, public management, and the policy process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For what kind of policies are elected officials more likely to be responsive to public opinion? The limited research in this area has found varying degrees of strength in the relationship between public opinion and policy on different policy domains. But scholarship about this important question has been handicapped by a lack of adequate measures and estimates of constituency opinion on policy issues. In this paper, I use the unprecedented statistical power and breadth of the 2000 National Annenberg Election Study (NAES) to explore the representation of constituency interests in Congress in greater detail than has previously been possible. I examine the relationship between congressional roll-call votes and constituency opinion on 20 different public policy issues. I find that in the House of Representatives between 1999 and 2000, the roll-call votes cast by members of Congress were responsive to public opinion was significant on a wide range of policy issues, including abortion, military spending, education, crime, taxes and the environment. Democratic and Republican lawmakers are responsive to public opinion on substantially different subsets of policies, suggesting a typology of issue responsiveness that is highly dependent on the varying levels of credibility that parties establish with voters on different issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]